I composed the below article in response to a Michael Malice show, I believe, that I watched a while back and the problem is, I don’t remember exactly what it was all about or who the guest was he was interviewing but I seem to recall that I wasn’t in complete agreement with their analysis of leftist libertarians or something and it provoked me to write this. I came across it in my “drafts” folder and I guess I was going to add some more to it or something but never did and summarily forgot to post it. I believe they had put up a picture of David Bowie in a dress on an album cover or something as an example of someone who was just trying to be provocative or something and discussing if these sort of actors are trying to change the culture and society or is it something more benign.
So if David Bowie or anyone for that matter, is just being provocative to “stir up shit” then for what purpose are they stirring it up? Is it just for their own amusement? Maybe, but I think it’s naive to think that that is the case or ever was the case. Why even bother if they weren’t trying to make a point. Being Provocative is surely not benign, is it? I doubt it. While some provocateurs are no doubt just being controversial to get more press many, I believe, are no doubt trying to push the envelope; to move the line of societal norms in a particular direction that is surely not more virtuous nor to the betterment of society and the culture or individuals for that matter.
The more often the public is bombarded with such imagery and the more outlandish it is, the less push-back there will ultimately be over time and the line will have moved, in my estimation, in a downward direction. It’s analogous to a drug user or an alcoholic and how over time their bodies develop a higher tolerance for what they’re exposing their bodies to and so they can take more of it, to a point. The question is, what value does degeneracy add to the culture and is it negative or positive? By its very nature, in my opinion, it is negative and even a cursory investigation of history shows that degeneracy in a Culture will ultimately spell its doom. Michael Malice said that it’s the people on the fringes that determine all cultures and he may be right but unfortunately that isn’t necessarily a good thing, not that there aren’t those to whom such degeneracy adds personal value or some sort of gratification.
To my mind, it seems like leftist values are largely incompatible with libertarianism? The very foundation of libertarianism requires a value system that is virtuous, like, don’t steal, don’t kill, keep your word, don’t cheat, so on and so forth. However, as a libertarian, I believe that people have the right to their own bodies and the fruits of their labors and can do whatever they see fit with them but then they must also live with the consequences, right? And you can be sure, there will be consequences. The principle of “sowing and reaping” will manifest itself eventually. So sure, debauchery can have its pleasures but sooner or later those chickens come home to roost and most people know this intrinsically, even without “religious” influences.
A fellow wears a T-shirt with a swastika to stir up shit but why? So he can say “Oh, I’m just kidding, the jokes on you!” and what? What did that accomplish? What was the point? “Hey, I’m wearing this symbol but I don’t really believe in the ideology behind it!” Is this going to open up a dialogue with people? Is just to get a rise out of people to show them they shouldn’t judge people just because they wear a particular symbol on their shirt? Okay, whatever. Just what does one hope to accomplish by this infantile act? I don’t see how this sort of behavior stimulates productive intellectual conversation at all. If it does or did then I’d be happy to know the outcome of the exercise.
No offense to Left libertarians but I believe that the libertarian/anarchist movement will die on the vine if left to the Left. There are certain things that are necessary for a society to flourish such as the family, virtue, and morality and this can be clearly seen throughout history. Without these foundational things, this fledgling movement will fail and the left with its, more or less, moral relativistic views cannot provide these things. The left can have life and breathe within the movement and within a libertarian society to be sure but it cannot provide the foundation necessary for its survival and growth. Again, in my opinion, without the Tom Woods’, Lew Rockwells’ and Ron Pauls’ it wouldn’t even have gotten off the ground let alone be a growing movement. The right-leaning-libertarian/anarchists are the backbone of the movement. Of course, I have to say that the idea of “left” and “right” as concepts are somewhat convoluted and on many issues and those of us who consider ourselves to be “right leaning-libertarians” believe in many things espoused by the left and vice-versa.
Moral relativism just won’t do. In an interview I saw a while back, Jordan Peterson says, he lives as though there is a God… and although I believe this is a copout on his part, evading the question put forth to him, he understands that the virtue that comes with a belief system, such as that of Christianity for example, is necessary for a society to flourish. There is that which is good and that which is evil and there are no shades of grey. Like that great philosopher of old, Ward Cleaver, told the beave, “Beaver, don’t you know? A thing is either right or it’s wrong.”